But lost amidst all this speculation and other head scratching, pundit-guessing “expert” opinions, etc. is 3D. No one seems to be asking whether 3D will be included — to be more accurate, the general lack of discussion would seem to suggest that everyone thinks 3D is pretty much out of the picture because Apple has shown a lack of interest in the third-dimension on its consumer line, beginning with its iMacs and laptops.

Now you can’t argue with success and there’s no denying that the lack of Blu-ray capabilities on the computer line in the past didn’t affect Apple’s sales in any significant manner or get them called out for it all that much either. I’m afraid that 3D will be the same thing. And just to get it out of the way, a polarized 3D flat-panel would not add to the cost significantly and at the 42-inch size it would perform well (not to mention the benefits of the low cost and simplicity of using/wearing 3D polarized glasses).

But I consider the lack of 3D, if true, a wasted opportunity for Apple to take more than a lead but rather 4 lengths ahead of the nearest horse in the race to sell (and make a profit while doing so) both TVs and the subscription services/content that is the real money-maker (you can’t expect Apple to sell their “razor” cheap, even as others would do so in order to make it up on the “blades” of content moving forward). But as a proponent of 3D for home viewing, Apple’s TV having 3D would have enormous ramifications in the industry: as I see it, there would be the increase in content (whether native or converted) to present on the set. And you know blessed well that Apple’s endorsement of 3D would do more than all the Mall shows and special events combined that the 3D TV manufacturers have put out there to date. Consumers would suddenly “get it,” and by “it” I mean 3D.